金光明最勝王經疏 4.428

4.428

贊曰：別非。此非初已生。若法未生，可待因生；果既生已，何用生等為因緣生？故《十二門論》頌云「此生若未生，云何能自生？若生已自生，已生何用生？」初二句破未生生，後兩句破已生生。此破去來實有。論釋云「若謂生已而生，生已即是生，何須更生？生已更無生，作已更無作。」此意生已更無生者，直責。作已更無作，舉喻例破。如所作事了而更不作，既體生已，何更生生？此難破大生及小生，例所生法爾。又解：亦破所生法。又頌云「先有即不生，先無亦不生，有無亦不生，誰當有生者？」此破因中有果論。初句破先有果，但用因生。第二三句設破先無及俱有，無用因生。第四句結不用因生，故所生亦無。此意本無今有，有即名生。果既因中先有，即應名生。此既已生，何用因生？故釋云：若果因中先有而生，是則無窮。

Commentary: Refuting each separately. This refutes the first, [arising from] that which has already arisen. If a phenomenon had not yet arisen, it could depend on a cause to arise; once the effect has already arisen, what use is an arising or the like as a cause and condition to produce it? Therefore, a verse in the Dvādaśanikāyaśāstra says: "If this arising has not yet arisen, / how can it produce itself? / If, having arisen, it produces itself, / having already arisen, what use is arising?" The first two lines refute arising from what has not yet arisen; the latter two lines refute arising from what has already arisen. This refutes the real existence of past and future. The treatise commentary explains: "If one says that having arisen it arises, having arisen is itself [already] arisen; why should it need to arise further? Having arisen, there is no further arising, just as once done, there is no further doing." The meaning of "having arisen, there is no further arising" directly points out the fault. "Once done, there is no further doing" adduces an analogy to refute it. Just as when a task that is to be done is finished, it is not done again; since its entity has already arisen, why should it further produce arising? This objection refutes the major arising and the minor arising, and by analogy applies to the produced phenomenon as well. Another explanation: it also refutes the produced phenomenon itself. Furthermore, a verse says: "Existing beforehand, it does not arise; / non-existent beforehand, it also does not arise; / both existent and non-existent, it also does not arise: / who would be one that possesses arising?" This refutes the theory that the effect exists within the cause. The first line refutes an effect existing beforehand being merely produced by a cause. The second and third lines provisionally refute non-existence beforehand as well as both, which also do not use causes to arise. The fourth line concludes that it does not use causes to arise, and therefore that which is produced is also non-existent. The meaning is: originally non-existent and now existent—existence is precisely termed arising. Since the effect already existed beforehand within the cause, it should already be termed arisen. Since this has already arisen, what use is it to arise from a cause? Therefore the commentary explains: if the effect exists beforehand within the cause and then arises, this would lead to an infinite regress.